ALBANY -- As the Victorian Society in America, a national preservation group, tours New York's capital city -- including the Fort Orange Club -- this weekend, its members won't witness the demolition of two 19th-century buildings.

But they could have.

The two-year battle between the private club and the Historic Albany Foundation over the club's desire to raze two neighboring buildings took two sudden twists Thursday when the city Planning Board unexpectedly voted to remove the last regulatory obstacle in the way of the demolitions.

That vote -- which a lawyer for the preservation group branded as "an outrageous act of ... lawlessness" -- prompted Historic Albany to immediately seek and, within hours, receive a temporary restraining order barring the club from razing the buildings at 118-120 Washington Ave. at least until a hearing scheduled for June 8.

Since March 2008 the Fort Orange Club has sought to tear the buildings down to make room for parking lots during an expansion of the club's athletic facilities, offering instead to build a12-foot brick and wrought-steel fence to shield the lot from view.

That the Planning Board was involved in the decision at all was the result of a new ordinance passed last year -- inspired by public outcry to the club's first attempt at getting rid of the buildings -- to force more public input on demolition applications.

But the club's application before the commission has been stalled for two months amid concerns by some commissioners about the process and a push by Historic Albany to have that stretch of Washington Avenue a half-block from the Capitol declared a historic district.

On Thursday, the Planning Board unanimously amended its earlier ruling, saying the new fence would still require the commission's approval but that the club need not receive that approval prior to demolition of the existing buildings.

Robert Sweeney, an attorney for the club, said the move makes sense because the commission was not reviewing the demolition itself.

"The heart of this is that the HRC approval relates only to the streetscape, it doesn't relate to the demolition," Sweeney said.

But opponents of the demolitions charged that the Planning Board was changing the rules midway and defying at least the spirit of the new demolition ordinance, which says no demolitions can take place until all the approvals needed for what will replace the buildings have been obtained.

"They used to do this in the Soviet Union, but even they're embarrassed to do this anymore," George Carpinello, an attorney for Historic Albany, said of the process.

Carpinello said the Planning Board's agenda led him and other members of Historic Albany to believe the panel was meeting only to consider new information unearthed by the group that Beulah Bailey Thull, a onetime statewide union leader and adviser to Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt, had lived in the buildings.

While interesting, Thull's residence in the buildings was not alone enough to make them historic, board members said.

"Why is the Planning Board going back on its own determination? I'll tell you what happened, they didn't like what HRC was doing," Carpinello said. "I'm sure the Fort Orange Club was very frustrated with several members of HRC saying we have serious questions about this."

The restraining order, signed by acting state Supreme Court Justice Gerald Connolly, came with a suit attacking the Planning Board's review of the project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the second such suit Historic Albany has filed against the city and club over the demolitions.

A state judge dismissed the first suit in February saying the group couldn't sue until, among other things, the Historic Resources Commission ruled on Fort Orange's application.

Jeffery Jamison, a city attorney who represents the Planning Board and commission, said the city did not oppose restraining order request and won't oppose a request for a preliminary injunction on June 8. But the city will fight the rest of the lawsuit, he said.

"We believe that the board's actions were appropriate and just, given the substantial evidence reviewed by them," Jamison said.